EN BANC
ERNESTO LUMANTA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1544
June 26, 2003
-versus-
WILFREDO M. TUPAS,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
PER
CURIAM:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This concerns the Complaint-Affidavit
dated April 28, 1999 filed with the Office of the Chief Justice by
Ernesto
Lumanta, charging Respondent, Wilfredo M. Tupas, Sheriff III of the
Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of General Santos City, Branch 11, with
gross
misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service.
On June 9, 1998, complainant
Ernesto Lumanta, a Credit and Collection Manager of Ayala Agricultural
Development Corporation (Ayala), accompanied respondent Tupas to the
residence
of spouses Joel de Vera and Portia de Vera at Ledesma Street, Poblacion
Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat in order to implement the writ of attachment
in
Civil Case No. 4049-3.cralaw:red
Upon meeting with the
spouses, respondent introduced and made known his authority and
purpose.
However, to complainant’s dismay and frustration, respondent, instead
of
implementing the writ, negotiated an amicable settlement that ended in
a verbal compromise agreement with the de Vera spouses without the
complainant’s
consent and approval. Respondent received cash in the amount of P5,000
and a post-dated check dated June 20, 1998, amounting to p46,737.50,
payable
to himself. Respondent advised the de Vera spouses to redeem or make
good
their post-dated check on or before June 20, 1998, otherwise he would
implement
the writ.cralaw:red
Despite the lapse of
five months from June 20, 1998, respondent failed to deliver the cash
and
the post-dated check, or the proceeds thereof, to the complainant.
Respondent
also ignored the complainant’s demand letter dated August 17, 1998.
Likewise,
the records of Civil Case No. 4049-3 reveal that respondent did not
file
a Sheriff’s Return relative to the implementation of the writ.cralaw:red
On June 2, 1999, then
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo referred Lumanta’s
complaint-affidavit
to Judge Jose A. Majaducon, MTCC of General Santos City, Branch 1, who,
in turn, indorsed the same to ExecutiVe Judge Gaydifredo Ocampo.
Executive
Judge Ocampo then endorsed the complaint-affidavit to respondent for
comment
but the latter ignored the same.cralaw:red
On September 20, 2000,
respondent personally received a "tracer" giving him 5 days from
receipt
of the complaint-affidavit to file his comment otherwise the same would
be submitted for resolution. Nothing, however, was heard from the
respondent
despite his receipt thereof.cralaw:red
His refusal to refute
the charges in the complaint, despite notice on two occasions, can only
mean that the allegations thereof were true and that he was not denying
them. Hence, we find the evidence on hand sufficient to justify a
verdict.cralaw:red
When a writ is placed
in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any lawful
instruction to the contrary, to proceed with its prompt execution
according
to its terms. He is supposed to execute the order of the court strictly
to the letter, as his duty is purely ministerial.[1]
In agreeing to an amicable settlement with spouses de Vera, respondent
Tupaz went beyond the tenor of the order and, in effect, amended or
revised
the court order. Such act constituted grave misconduct.cralaw:red
Respondent also overstepped
his authority when he requested and personally received the amount of
P5,000
and a post-dated check in the amount of p46,737.50 payable to himself.
Sec. 9, par.(c), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court authorizes a sheriff’s
legal fee of no more than P50 for executing a writ of attachment.[2]
An additional sum may be required from the party requesting the writ;
however,
certain steps must be complied with. Initially, the sheriff’s estimate
of the expenses in executing the writ must be approved by the judge.
The
approved estimate shall be deposited with the clerk of court.
Thereafter,
an ex oficio sheriff shall disburse the same to the sheriff assigned to
implement the writ who, in turn, shall liquidate within the same period
for rendering a return. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the
party
making the deposit.[3]
As declared by the complainant,
respondent received the amount of p5,000 aside from the post-dated
check.
Said amount was not part of the approved estimate of expenses and was
not
deposited with the clerk of court. A sheriff is not allowed to receive
gratuities or voluntary payments from parties they are ordered to
assist
in the course of their duties.[4]
In Eduarte vs. Ramos,[5]
a deputy sheriff was administratively held liable for receiving p5,000
from the prevailing party. We noted therein that there was no
justification
for the sheriff’s failure to liquidate the amount paid to him, although
the amount was not given strictly in accordance with Section 9 of Rule
141. While the record in the criminal case for estafa against herein
respondent
reveals that the latter deposited the P5,000 and the check with the
clerk
of court, the same was made 7 months after the implementation of the
writ
and only after receipt of a demand letter from the complainant -
clearly
an afterthought rather than the faithful fulfillment of duty.cralaw:red
Likewise, respondent
violated Rule 57, Section 6 of the Rules of Court which provides that:
Sec. 6. Sheriff’s Return.
- After enforcing the writ, the sheriff must likewise without delay
make
a return thereon to the court from which the writ was issued, with a
full
statement of his proceedings under the writ and a complete inventory of
the property attached, together with any counter-bond given by the
party
against whom attachment is issued, and serve copies thereof on the
applicant.cralaw:red
Respondent’s lack of
diligence and zeal in the performance of his duty was inexcusable. His
failure to liquidate and remit the amounts received within a reasonable
time constituted dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest
of the service.cralaw:red
Once again, we stress
that high standards are expected of sheriffs, inasmuch as they play an
important role in the administration of justice. As officers of the
court
and therefore agents of the law, sheriffs must discharge their duties
with
due care and utmost diligence because, in serving the court’s writs and
processes and in implementing its lawful orders, they cannot afford to
err without affecting the administration of justice.[6]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Wilfredo M. Tupaz, Sheriff III of the MTCC of General Santos City,
Branch
11, is hereby found GUILTY of serious misconduct, dishonesty and
conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is hereby
DISMISSED
from office, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, and with permanent disqualification from employment in
any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
or controlled corporations.cralaw:red
This resolution is immediately
executory.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Araza vs. Garcia, 325 SCRA 1, 8 [2000].
[2]
Increased to p60.00 effective March 1, 2000 per amendment introduced in
Court Resolution dated September 14, 1999 in A.M. No. 99-8-01.
[3]
In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the
process
of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the
sheriff’s
expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the
property
levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each
kilometer
of travel, guards’ fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount
estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval the court. Upon
approval
of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such
amount
with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, who shall disburse the
same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to
liquidation
within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any
unspent
amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report
shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and
the sheriffs expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment
debtor.
[4]
Canlas vs. Balasbas, 337 SCRA 41, 46 [2000].
[5]
238 SCRA 36-41 [1994].
[6]
Ignacio vs. Payumo, 344 SCRA 169, 173 [2000]. |